Making the case for marriage

Low fertility is a national crisis. Malcolm Turnbull writes how we might start to overcome it.

All the developed world, including Australia, is experiencing a historically unprecedented decline in fertility. Among developed nations, only the United States has a birth rate at or above the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman. Ours is about 1.75.

The consequence of these declining birth rates has been described as an "ageing population". That is a glib and slippery euphemism. A society (like many in Europe) with a birth rate of 1.2 is not "ageing". It is dying.

All of us recognise the importance of immigration in nation-building. I believe our current skills-focused immigration program has served us well, but I also believe that we have to stop treating fertility like the ghost at the demographers' feast or (with apologies to John Howard) barbecue.

The truth is that our population problems, and those of other developed nations, are a result of low fertility. Those consequences simply cannot practically be averted by immigration unless fertility is closer to replacement level.

Immigration has been at the centre of our national debate all this century. But we should refocus our attention on the more important factor in this equation: fertility.

Australians should pursue some clear national goals in the field of family policy. These include:

The recognition that a higher birth rate requires us to enhance rather than restrict the choices of women and that it is desirable for women to be able, if they wish, to fulfil two goals: child-bearing and a career.

The recognition that the dramatic decline in marriage and increase in divorce has had profoundly damaging effects on our society and that we should take steps to promote the traditional married family with a view to increasing the number of marriages and decreasing the number of divorces.

Immigration has been at the centre of our national debate all this century. But we should refocus our attention on the more important factor in this equation: fertility.

Generally, I think it is fair to summarise the problem in this way: the availability of contraception and the relaxation of moral taboos mean it is no longer necessary to be married to have sex safely or indeed to cohabit. Longer periods in education and the need to establish oneself in a career (for both sexes) has meant that marriage is postponed and so is the birth of the first child. The decline in marriage and increase in divorce makes the family environment less secure for would-be mothers, and increased mobility in the modern workplace with less job security makes the world of work appear less secure.

Because most women want to be involved in the workforce and because very few workplaces offer real flexibility (flexible hours, child care etc) to encourage mothers to work there (as opposed to childless women), the pressures to have no children or just one child are very powerful.

We should not be afraid to make the case for marriage. There is a very high correlation (higher than there is for race or poverty) in most of the research between the absence of the biological father and child poverty, juvenile crime and sexual abuse.

We spend millions urging people to give up smoking, drive without drinking and lose weight. We spend billions supporting single-parent families and the social consequences of family breakdown. But we do far too little to promote marriage and discourage divorce.

The situation is similar in the US but changing; organised programs of marriage education and support have already materially reduced the divorce rates in the areas in which they have operated.

We know children are in every respect better off if they are living with their biological parents, formally married (as opposed to cohabiting). We know there is a social cost (and not just in dollars) from marriage breakdown and single parenting. Should we not do more to promote the institution of marriage?

No-fault divorce is here to stay (for good or ill), but should we not consider instituting more extensive marriage preparation and a different, less unilateral, approach to divorce when small children are involved?

Or should not couples have the right, as they are able to do in some parts of the US, to contract to a higher standard of marital commitment so that they voluntarily agree to make divorce harder?

Malcolm Turnbull is the outgoing federal treasurer of the Liberal Party. This is an edited extract from his paper to last week's national population summit in Adelaide.